CAT/OP/KGZ/2 B. Recommendations on methodological issues relating to visits 49. In order to assist and advise the national preventive mechanism in its task of protecting persons deprived of their liberty, the Subcommittee visited, together with the national preventive mechanism, a place of deprivation of liberty (see annex II). In the present section and on the basis of observations from the joint visit, the Subcommittee is making the following recommendations concerning preparations for visits to places of detention, the methods to be used during such visits and steps to be taken following their completion. 1. Prior to visits Strategy and procedure 50. The Subcommittee welcomes the classification in the law on the national preventive mechanism of the three types of preventive visits carried out by the mechanism, and the inclusion in the law of a brief explanation of the methodology for each type. However, the mechanism should develop more in-depth and separate methodologies for each type of visit and the aspects not covered by the law. While the frequency of visits can vary, the mechanism should ensure that all places of detention are regularly visited and that visits remain unannounced. 51. The Subcommittee was informed that the national preventive mechanism had in the past conducted, and may again conduct, joint visits with the Prosecutor General’s Office. The Subcommittee finds this practice inconsistent with the aim and mandate of the mechanism, which is prevention of torture, rather than inspection of places of detention. 52. The Subcommittee reminds the national preventive mechanism of its prevention mandate, based on which it should refrain from conducting joint visits with other State entities, especially the Prosecutor General’s Office. This is to preserve the principles of independence and impartiality, the preventive mandate of the mechanism and the trust between persons deprived of liberty and the mechanism. 53. As indicated by the national preventive mechanism during the Subcommittee’s visit, it has conducted over four thousand visits to places of deprivation of liberty since its establishment. While the Subcommittee acknowledges the great number of visits conducted, it reminds the mechanism that the number of visits does not constitute the most appropriate indicator for the performance. More appropriate indicators include the number of reports submitted, the number of recommendations made and how many among them were followed up on, implemented or not implemented, and the general decrease in the number of cases of torture and ill-treatment and trends in that area. 54. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism adopt a methodological approach, not solely for preventive visits 13 but also for all other activities and functions it performs, that is based on the concept of prevention of torture.14 To this end, it is highly recommended that the mechanism adopt standard operating procedures for visits, including methodologies for interviews with both detainees and staff in the places of deprivation of liberty, as well as for methods of follow-up, and that it apply them consistently. The standard operating procedures can be revised according to emerging needs and in compliance with the mandate of the national preventive mechanism. 55. It is of the utmost importance that the national preventive mechanism spend a sufficient amount of time on the meticulous preparation of every activity, in particular preventive visits. Every member of a team that conducts a visit must know in advance what their attributed role is and what is expected from them, as well as the overall dynamics of the visit. 13 14 10 As characterized in article 23 of the law on the national preventive mechanism. As set out in the guidelines on national preventive mechanisms (CAT/OP/12/5) and in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights publication Preventing Torture: The Role of National Preventive Mechanisms (2018).